A Dudley constituent recently wrote to Senator Moore about receiving a speeding citation, and their view on the unfair nature of paying for an appeal trial, as well as the possibility of a second appeal trial.  The constituent raised the point with Senator Moore that a person who is having difficulty making ends meet may not have any recourse in disputing a citation that may have been erroneously issued.  Agreeing with the constituent, Senator Moore offered some helpful suggestions as to where he could further his complaint.    Read the exchange between Senator Moore and the Dudley constituent below:

---

From: A Dudley Constituent
To: Senator Moore

Dear Senator Moore,

On June 18, 2010 I was issued a citation for speeding by a Sturbridge Police Officer..

As I don’t believe that I was driving 54 miles an hour in the 40 miles an hour zone, I have elected to request a hearing.

At this point I have to mention that I was last cited for speeding by a police office in Massachusetts more than thirty years ago. I will be requesting (for a fee) my records from the RMV.

I received a communication from the Dudley District Court yesterday informing me that there is a, “$25.00 FEE NOW REQUIRED FOR A HEARING ON A CIVIL MOTOR VEHICLE INFRACTION BEFORE A MAGISTRATE.”

It further states that, “AFTER MAGISTRATE’S HEARING FURTHER APPEAL TO JUDGE $50.00 FEE PAYABLE FORTHWITH.”

Please note that the capital letters above are as presented on the form I received.

Two things strike me as unfair about this, first, there is no mention of any of these monies being refunded if the individual is found innocent or the charge is dismissed. That I see as a fine in and of itself. Someone could be as innocent as a newborn, but still after all is said and done be out $25.00 or as much as $75.00.

The second question I have is how would someone with limited means, someone just getting by, can afford to take time off from work (lose wages) and then have to fork over as much as $75.00. in order to defend themselves against a disputed charge? 

How hollow a victory, to win and still be out the $75.00 plus lost wages.

In case it has escaped the notice of the legislature, the courts and the executive branch in Boston, this would be a significant hardship for many working people in the commonwealth.

What option is left for people in this circumstance but to roll over and pay the fine whether it is justified or not? How many innocent people feel coerced into doing just that?

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? When was it changed to innocent if you can afford it?

Is this justice in Massachusetts or is this more like what someone would expect to see in a third world country? 

Maybe I would have been better off if I was cited in Guatemala. 

There has to be question of constitutionality in this somewhere.

This doesn’t even get to the question of the constitutionality of the insurance surcharge. If that isn’t double jeopardy then I would like someone to tell me what it is.

I would appreciate it if you would let me know your thoughts on this and what can be done to change whatever law it is that has brought this situation into existence.

Sincerely,

A Dudley Constituent

---

From: Senator Moore
To: Dudley Constituent

Dear Dudley Constituent,

Thank you for your email about the issue of fees charged for appeal of civil motor vehicle infractions in the district court.

The fees were established in Chapter 27 of the Acts of 2009 - the Fiscal Year 2010 General Appropriations Act in Sections 73 (the $25 fee for a hearing before a clerk-magistrate) and Section 74 (the $50 fee to appeal to a judge). The receipts from the fees are permitted to be retained by the Trial Court Department in accordance with line item 0330-3333. Consequently, the fees help to pay for the operation of the courts.

There was, as I recall, an attempt to repeal the fees during debate on the FY 2011 budget, however, it was unsuccessful. Since I am concerned about the fairness of these fees, I believe that I voted for repeal, but I will have to check the Senate Journal to confirm my recollection. I will support efforts to repeal this fee in future budget debates. However, given the severe revenue shortage and the deficit facing the court system, I expect that there will be significant opposition to repeal since it would mean a larger deficit for the courts in the current budget.

I am not a lawyer, so I can't really give a valid opinion on the constitutionality of the fee. I have not heard about any appeal by either an individual or any effort by a group such as ACLU to seek a ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court. I would encourage you to contact ACLU to see if they have an interest in such an effort. The contact information for the ACLU of Massachusetts located in Boston is 617-482-3170 or info@aclum.org

It does seem unfair for someone to have to pay a fee to contest a citation which they believe to be erroneously issued. I will inquire of the court system if there is a waiver process for those who may find this to be a hardship, however, I would expect the response to be that the amount of the fee is unlikely to prohibit anyone from appealing if they feel justified. The number of appeals have increased over the years in an effort by many drivers to try to avoid the speeding fine because a guilty finding or admission of guilt results in the fine and a surcharge of $350 per year for three years. The appeals add to the administrative burden of the courts and that costs the taxpayers if it is not reduced by user charges in the form of the fees.

Senator Richard T. Moore